Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

CFPB Drops Lawsuit Against Money Transmitter

By A.J. Dhaliwal, Mehul Madia & Beineng Zhang on April 11, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Finance-and-Bankruptcy-Blog-Image_Sinking-Piggy-Bank-660x283

On April 8, a federal court granted the CFPB’s motion to withdraw from its joint enforcement action against a global money transmitter. The lawsuit, originally filed in April 2022 in partnership with the New York Attorney General, alleged violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), including the Remittance Rule under its implementing Regulation E.

The complaint detailed a range of statutory and regulatory violations affecting remittance transfers used by consumers to send funds abroad. The core allegations included:

  • Inaccurate availability disclosures. The company allegedly failed to accurately disclose the date on which funds would be available to recipients.
  • Deficient error resolution. The company purportedly failed to promptly investigate consumer complaints, issue required fee refunds, or provide mandated explanations and documentation.
  • Noncompliant internal procedures. Regulators alleged the company lacked adequate written policies to identify covered errors, ensure timely investigations, and retain necessary compliance documentation.
  • Unfair acts under the CFPA. The Bureau and the New York AG alleged that the company unnecessarily delayed remittance transfers and refunds after completing internal screenings, leaving consumers without timely access to funds.

The lawsuit will now proceed with the New York AG as the sole plaintiff.

Putting It Into Practice: The CFPB’s withdrawal from this case is consistent with a broader trend of reassessing enforcement actions initiated under prior leadership (previously discussed here and here). While the Bureau appears to be narrowing its enforcement focus, state regulators—such as the New York Attorney General—continue to pursue consumer protection matters with vigor (discussed here). Financial services companies should not interpret reduced federal activity as a reprieve.

Photo of A.J. Dhaliwal A.J. Dhaliwal

A.J. is a partner in the Finance and Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Read more about A.J. DhaliwalEmail
Photo of Mehul Madia Mehul Madia

Mehul Madia, special counsel in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, provides deep consumer finance and fintech expertise to clients, leveraging more than 15 years’ of public and private sector experience.

Read more about Mehul MadiaEmail
Photo of Beineng Zhang Beineng Zhang

Beineng Zhang is an associate in the Finance and Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Orange County office.

Read more about Beineng ZhangEmail
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    Consumer Finance and Fintech Blog
  • Organization:
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo